Am I being too generous ? Or am I too tight ?

Interesting, Hard work never hurt anyone but the thought of it is killing plenty. I agree with some of Nick's comments (not all) and as an Engineer also agree it's been good to me too. I suspect he's right about good Engineers, rarely if ever out of work.

Also in the proud working class brigade but I believe that working class is now too lofty an aspiration for many. As for training it's an investment you either make or you don't

Good idea, back to basics, I don't give to charity, I did a few runs etc for charities a couple of years back, it cost me a fortune, became an expectation, and never a word of thanks so I gave up and now run and bike for fun.

Fair enough, so actually what the government spends your taxes on is irrelevant to your choice not to donate money to charity

Well it shoud be - unless you have some strange idea, like Nick does, that it's all somehow going to benefit scroungers and not paying valuable people like nurses, policemen and prison warders.

No, I don't have that idea at all. I find it very odd that people feel the need to justify or whitewash the decision not to give to charity they will trot out the argument "I pay my taxes, so I don't need to"

Fine if they don't want to give money to charity, but why not just say so? No need to act like paying tax is altruistic and paying higher rate tax is the same as donating extra money to charity.

Umm...Xine I was actually agreeing with your previous comment and I also agree with this one.

Whatever we think of his decision, Nick is quite within his rights not to donate money to charity but trying to justify it by basing his argument on some strange idea about benefit scroungers is entirely flawed and just makes him look - well, a bit silly really.

I gave about 12 doses of blood in my younger days but then stopped giving because I felt I should be paid for it. (Yes, I know it would attract the wrong sort of people, but nonetheless the NHS pays for everything else. Why should they get blood free?)

I read this yesterday, but couldn't reply because of the restrictions at work but felt I had to ask you Colin what do you mean by "The wrong sort of people?"

Are you trying to say that blood from people who would want paying is of lesser quality?

If the NHS paid for blood donations, it would attract a lot of people very strapped for cash, which would, for example, include a higher proportion of drug addicts, bringing a greater risk of transmission of diseases such as HIV.

To actually suggest you be paid for giving blood which might save a person's life, potentially even one of your loved-ones, is astounding. I guess you'll be too mean to donate your organs won't you? God forbid someone should get them for free, even if you're too dead to use them.

"Altruism" is clearly not a concept you are familiar with.

I don't see why it's "astounding" to suggest you are paid a fair price for your body products. You're only "astounded" (if indeed you are astounded??) because you're accustomed to the idea that blood is free to the NHS. If the NHS wants to buy new thermometers, or new beds, or a new scanner, or to have doctors and nurses, etc, the NHS PAYS for it. The NHS pays billions to get what it needs. Exceptionally, the NHS has hived off blood donation into the separate arena of "charitable giving", making it something people are expected to give for free if they give it at all, whereas the NHS has to pay for pretty much everything else it gets. I don't think it's unreasonable for donors to be paid for their body product, seeing as it has a value, and a value to someone else, and I don't think the idea they should be paid for it is "astounding" at all. It's actually rather astounding that the Blood Service manages to get people to give away a valuable product entirely free.

Organ donation comes into the same category for me, yes. Organ donors could usefully be paid for the donation of something that's of value (in some cases, huge value) to someone else. Not because I'm mean, as you suggest, but because it's fair that me or my estate should be paid for something that has a market value and a value to someone else. If someone buys my house, they pay for it. Why should they get parts of my body free of charge?

There's actually a shortage of organs which could be eliminated if people were paid for their organs instead of payment being illegal, as I believe it is in this country, so arguments you may have against non-payment are actually weak. People are dying who needn't die, because other people aren't induced to donate by a system of fair payment when there could be a system of fair payment for body parts.

Altruism isa concept I'm familiar with. I'm also familiar with other concepts, such as reasonableness, people being taken advantage of for their good nature, the laws of supply and demand, common sense, and fairness, and the same people in society being put upon to give, give, give, again and again until they get a bit sick of it and become resistant and cynical.

I don't mind giving a charitable donation when I feel like it, especially if it's a cause that I believe to be worthy, but I don't like it when you get accosted by the chuggers in the street. They almost block your path with their arms out wide. It actually makes me less likely to give when I see them.

To actually suggest you be paid for giving blood which might save a person's life, potentially even one of your loved-ones, is astounding. I guess you'll be too mean to donate your organs won't you? God forbid someone should get them for free, even if you're too dead to use them.

"Altruism" is clearly not a concept you are familiar with.

I don't see why it's "astounding" to suggest you are paid a fair price for your body products. You're only "astounded" (if indeed you are astounded??) because you're accustomed to the idea that blood is free to the NHS. If the NHS wants to buy new thermometers, or new beds, or a new scanner, or to have doctors and nurses, etc, the NHS PAYS for it. The NHS pays billions to get what it needs. Exceptionally, the NHS has hived off blood donation into the separate arena of "charitable giving", making it something people are expected to give for free if they give it at all, whereas the NHS has to pay for pretty much everything else it gets. I don't think it's unreasonable for donors to be paid for their body product, seeing as it has a value, and a value to someone else, and I don't think the idea they should be paid for it is "astounding" at all. It's actually rather astounding that the Blood Service manages to get people to give away a valuable product entirely free.

Organ donation comes into the same category for me, yes. Organ donors could usefully be paid for the donation of something that's of value (in some cases, huge value) to someone else. Not because I'm mean, as you suggest, but because it's fair that me or my estate should be paid for something that has a market value and a value to someone else. If someone buys my house, they pay for it. Why should they get parts of my body free of charge?

There's actually a shortage of organs which could be eliminated if people were paid for their organs instead of payment being illegal, as I believe it is in this country, so arguments you may have against non-payment are actually weak. People are dying who needn't die, because other people aren't induced to donate by a system of fair payment when there could be a system of fair payment for body parts.

Altruism isa concept I'm familiar with. I'm also familiar with other concepts, such as reasonableness, people being taken advantage of for their good nature, the laws of supply and demand, common sense, and fairness, and the same people in society being put upon to give, give, give, again and again until they get a bit sick of it and become resistant and cynical.

To actually suggest you be paid for giving blood which might save a person's life, potentially even one of your loved-ones, is astounding. I guess you'll be too mean to donate your organs won't you? God forbid someone should get them for free, even if you're too dead to use them.

"Altruism" is clearly not a concept you are familiar with.

I don't see why it's "astounding" to suggest you are paid a fair price for your body products. You're only "astounded" (if indeed you are astounded??) because you're accustomed to the idea that blood is free to the NHS. If the NHS wants to buy new thermometers, or new beds, or a new scanner, or to have doctors and nurses, etc, the NHS PAYS for it. The NHS pays billions to get what it needs. Exceptionally, the NHS has hived off blood donation into the separate arena of "charitable giving", making it something people are expected to give for free if they give it at all, whereas the NHS has to pay for pretty much everything else it gets. I don't think it's unreasonable for donors to be paid for their body product, seeing as it has a value, and a value to someone else, and I don't think the idea they should be paid for it is "astounding" at all. It's actually rather astounding that the Blood Service manages to get people to give away a valuable product entirely free.

Organ donation comes into the same category for me, yes. Organ donors could usefully be paid for the donation of something that's of value (in some cases, huge value) to someone else. Not because I'm mean, as you suggest, but because it's fair that me or my estate should be paid for something that has a market value and a value to someone else. If someone buys my house, they pay for it. Why should they get parts of my body free of charge?

There's actually a shortage of organs which could be eliminated if people were paid for their organs instead of payment being illegal, as I believe it is in this country, so arguments you may have against non-payment are actually weak. People are dying who needn't die, because other people aren't induced to donate by a system of fair payment when there could be a system of fair payment for body parts.

Altruism isa concept I'm familiar with. I'm also familiar with other concepts, such as reasonableness, people being taken advantage of for their good nature, the laws of supply and demand, common sense, and fairness, and the same people in society being put upon to give, give, give, again and again until they get a bit sick of it and become resistant and cynical.

I'll refer back to Screamy's comment: "Just as well we don't all think like you, Colin".

Giving, whether that be cash or blood/organs, is a personal choice and the argument you give is just as valid as anyone elses and needs no justification. Fortunately many do give blood. I must admit to not giving blood myself but I was told when I was young that I couldn't due to an illness I'd had - I should really check that is true though!

Going back to the OP, and other comments herein:Everyone has a right to give (or not to give) that is their choice. It makes no odds to me, and I don't see charity giving or donation as some kind of "karma" (don't believe in it). If people choose not to, so be it, if people choose to, so be it. Colin makes a point - not one I agree with - but I understand his economic argument. The conflict here would be that the NHS is a service provider, free to all, funded by the state thru either taxation, or indeed donations (blood). At present, fortunately, I am a net contributer to the UK health system, although I envisage a time when its likely I may not be. The other scenario is a US style system, when we all have to pay for healthcare. An avenue I'd rather not go down.As for charity giving, personally speaking, eyes are opened wider upon personal experience: Mcmillan nurses for example were priceless when my mother died. Economically, you could argue my small donations are paying for their services, yet unlike professional providers, they are motivated by cause rather than money.

But anyway - as far as I'm aware, blood donation has always been voluntary and unpaid. I know because my dad was a blood donor for years. It isn't something that's been "hived off into the arena of charitable giving", it's just your skewed view of the process.

Let's have a look at your idea of payment for body products though shall we? Who will pay? The NHS? If so, they're paying out of the taxation from you and others that they have already received and out of limited funds. Is that your idea of a convoluted sort of refund? And how would you feel about being denied a hip operation because the money for it has been given to a person (live or dead) who donated a kidney?

Alternatively, perhaps the person who needs the blood/organs pays. Can you imagine where that would lead - a world where even donated organs go to the people who can bid the most for them? No thank you.

When you receive blood it is free at the point of need, as it is if you need an organ donation, as it is for virtually all NHS treatment. The whole reason people don't get paid is to make the system fair and equal. Price and value are not the same thing. You clearly don't get that.

I don't understand how you, and people like you, automatically equate charity with being taken advantage of. But then I'm not you and, for that, I'm thankful.

Well I am late to this very interesting debate....a common thread seemed to be keeping the charity local(ish). I can see the logic behind that, there may be a stronger emotional resonance, for example. Answering Wilkie's question, I make regular donations to 2 charities - Medicins sans Frontiers and Mines Advisory Group, both of which deal with conflict / post-conflict situations. Possibly because I have lived in countries where there were civil wars, and the victims may well go from hard working tax-paying citizens such as ourselves () to devastated / injured et cetera through no fault of their own.

I work very hard for my money, pay high rate taxes, resent scroungers etc etc, but have also seen situations where (particularly) a child's illness has just completely destroyed a family's financial situation. Not all the help needed is state funded (different argument it should / shouldn't be - it just isn't today.) So I also raise funds on the odd occasion and make the one off donations from time to time.

I read the Times because I like the puzzles on Thurs / Fri. Does that tell you all about my politics?

"Rabbit realised the world was not solid and benign, it was a shabby set of temporary arrangements rigged up for the time being, all for the sake of money. You just passed through, and they milked you for what you were worth, mostly when you were young and gullible."

But anyway - as far as I'm aware, blood donation has always been voluntary and unpaid. I know because my dad was a blood donor for years. It isn't something that's been "hived off into the arena of charitable giving", it's just your skewed view of the process.

Let's have a look at your idea of payment for body products though shall we? Who will pay? The NHS? If so, they're paying out of the taxation from you and others that they have already received and out of limited funds. Is that your idea of a convoluted sort of refund? And how would you feel about being denied a hip operation because the money for it has been given to a person (live or dead) who donated a kidney?

Alternatively, perhaps the person who needs the blood/organs pays. Can you imagine where that would lead - a world where even donated organs go to the people who can bid the most for them? No thank you.

When you receive blood it is free at the point of need, as it is if you need an organ donation, as it is for virtually all NHS treatment. The whole reason people don't get paid is to make the system fair and equal. Price and value are not the same thing. You clearly don't get that.

I don't understand how you, and people like you, automatically equate charity with being taken advantage of. But then I'm not you and, for that, I'm thankful.

"Rabbit realised the world was not solid and benign, it was a shabby set of temporary arrangements rigged up for the time being, all for the sake of money. You just passed through, and they milked you for what you were worth, mostly when you were young and gullible."

~ John Updike, "Rabbit at Rest" (1990)

Yeah, well perhaps I get my world view more from Dickens than from Updike. Thankfully.

I've been prompted by this thread to add to my regular donations! The other prompt being the H*****x changing the t&c on their reward accounts so you have to have direct debits on your account as well as paying in every month. I'd been enjoying the free fivers every month now I'm giving them away

I work for a charity as well as volunteer for them. I know how much some people give to charity and it is generally true that those on lower incomes give a far higher proportion of their money away to charity than those with more money.

It would be great if we didn't have to rely on charities to provide some fairly basic services (someone mentioned Macmillan nurses - why isn't what they do provided by the NHS?) but I don't think that day will ever come.

Previously bookmarked threads are now visible in "Followed Threads". You can also manage notifications on these threads from the "Forum Settings" section of your profile settings page to prevent being sent an email when a reply is made.

Runner's World is a publication of Hearst Magazines UK which is the trading name of The National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved. Runner's World, Part of the Hearst UK wellbeing network